Smt Nivyashree R vs Dr Sunil Kumar K N on 13 March, 2026

                           -1-
                                     RPFC No. 253 of 2025



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

                         BEFORE
       THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
         REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.253 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1.    SMT NIVYASHREE R
      COURT
      W/O DR. SUNILKUMAR K N,
      D/O RANGSHETTY,
      AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

2.    LISHITHASHETTY S N
      D/O DR SUNILKUMAR K N,
      AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS,

3.    JISHNUSHETTY
      S/O DR SUNILKUMAR K N,
      AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS,

      THE PETITIONERS NO.2 AND 3
      ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY
      THEIR MOTHER PETITIONER NO.1
      AS GUARDIAN

      BOTH ARE R/AT NO.691,
      SRI RANGA NILAYA,
      2ND MAIN ROAD, 12TH CROSS,
      NEAR GANAPATHI TEMPLE
      CHANNAPATNA HOUSING BOARD,
      OPP. NEW BUS STAND HASSAN.
                                          ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MAHESH M R.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

DR. SUNIL KUMAR K N
S/O NARAGASHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
                                -2-
                                            RPFC No. 253 of 2025



WORKING PLACE AT
SENIOR VETERINARY OFFICER,
VETERINARY HOSPITAL,
GANJIGERE VILLAGE,
KUNDURU HOBLI, ALUR TALUK.

RESIDING AT:
L.I.G NO.1345,
58TH ROAD,
CHANNAPATNA HOUSING BOARD,
OPP. NEW BUS STAND,
HASSAN.
                                                 ...RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT - SERVED (ABSENT))

     THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY
COURT ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.07.2025 PASSED
IN CRL.MISC NO.71/2022 ON THE FILE OF PRL.,JUDGE, FAMILY
COURT, HASSAN., PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED
UNDER SE.125 OF CR.P.C., FOR MAINTENANCE.

    THIS REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 05.03.2026 AND
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:


CORAM:      HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO


                          CAV ORDER
        The present petition is filed under Section 19(4) of the

Family Courts Act, 1984 by the petitioner-wife seeking to set

aside     the    impugned     order      dated   29.07.2025    in

Crl.Misc.No.71/2022 on the file of the Principal Family Court

Hassan ('the Family Court' for short).
                                      -3-
                                                  RPFC No. 253 of 2025



     2.        The     petitioners/respondent        herein      is   the

petitioners/respondent before the Family Court.


     3.        The petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioners No.2 and

3 are the minor children of the respondent-husband.


     4.        The Crl.Misc.No.71/2022 was filed under Section

125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Cr.P.C', for

short)    by     the   petitioners     against     respondent     seeking

maintenance       of   Rs.20,000/-         per   month   for   petitioners

No.1 to 3.


     5.        The brief facts of the case are that:-

     The petitioner No.1 herein is the wife and the petitioners

No.2 and 3 are the minor children of the respondent-husband.

The petitioner No.1 was married to respondent on 17.04.2013

at Tanvi Trisha Kalyana Mantapa in accordance with Hindu

customs and rites, in the presence of relatives and friends from

both sides. After the solemnization of the marriage, the parties

resided together and initially led their marital life happily

without any discord. Out of the said wedlock, two children were

born. The first female child was born on 23.08.2016 and is

arrayed as petitioner No.2. Thereafter, a second male child was

born on 20.05.2022 and is arrayed as petitioner No.3.
                                -4-
                                              RPFC No. 253 of 2025



     6.      It is the case of the petitioners that after the

marriage, the respondent began demanding for additional

dowry from the parental home of petitioner No.1-wife. It is

further alleged that the respondent frequently picked quarrels

with petitioner No.1 on one pretext or another. On several

occasions, elders from both families convened panchayaths and

advised   the   respondent   not     to   ill-treat   petitioner   No.1.

However, despite such interventions, the conduct of the

respondent allegedly did not improve and the harassment

continued.


     7.      The petitioners urged that the respondent is a

habitual drunkard and that he used to physically assault wife

while reiterating his demands for additional dowry from her

parental home. It is stated that when petitioner No.3 was born

on 20.05.2022, the respondent did not even visit the hospital

to see the newborn child. According to the petitioners, the

respondent gradually neglected them and failed to provide

basic necessities and support. It is further averred that in the

year 2022, the respondent issued a legal notice to his wife

seeking dissolution of marriage by way of divorce. However,

wife did not send any reply to the said notice as she was in the

post-pregnancy period at that time.
                                -5-
                                          RPFC No. 253 of 2025



      8.    The respondent-husband entered appearance and

filed his statement of objections denying the averments made

in the petition and sought dismissal of the same.


      9.    In order to substantiate the case of the petitioners,

the petitioner No.1 has examined herself as PW-1 and got

marked documents as per Exs.P1 to P27. On the other hand,

the respondent has examined himself as RW-1 and marked no

documents in support of his defense.


      10.   Based on the pleadings, oral and documentary

evidence, the Family Court framed issues and passed an order

directing the respondent-husband to pay maintenance of sum

of Rs.12,000/- to petitioner No.2 and Rs.12,000/- to petitioner

No.3 and further held that petitioner No.1-wife is not entitled to

any maintenance from the respondent.


      11.   Being aggrieved by the order of the Family Court,

the petitioners have preferred the present petition seeking

enhancement of the maintenance amount for petitioners No.2

and 3 and seeking maintenance for petitioner No.1.


      12.   Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend

that the respondent is working as a Senior Veterinary Officer in
                                -6-
                                          RPFC No. 253 of 2025



the Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services

under the Government of Karnataka. During the course of

cross-examination, the respondent has admitted that he was

drawing a gross salary of about Rs.1,30,000/- per month. In

support of the said contention, the petitioners have produced

the salary slip for the month of June, 2022 marked as Ex.P5,

which indicates that the respondent was drawing a gross salary

of Rs.90,167/- and a net salary of Rs.70,505/- per month at

the relevant point of time. In view of the subsequent

Government pay revision, the respondent is presently drawing

approximately Rs.1,60,000/- per month.


      13. It is further contended that apart from his salary

income,   the   respondent   possesses   sufficient   assets   and

financial resources. The respondent has admitted that he owns

a Tata Nexon Car, a Royal Enfield Bullet motorcycle and a

Honda Unicorn motorcycle. The petitioners have also produced

the RTC marked as Ex.P8 to show that the respondent has

purchased 2 guntas of land in the name of his father, upon

which, according to the petitioners, a three-storied building has

been constructed.
                                  -7-
                                            RPFC No. 253 of 2025



      14.     Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits

that the respondent is also running a medical shop in the name

and style of "Lishitha Medicals", which indicates that he has

additional sources of income. In spite of possessing such

financial capacity, the respondent has allegedly neglected and

failed to maintain the petitioners. The petitioners had produced

several     documents   before   the   Family   Court   stating   the

expenditure incurred for the education of petitioner No.2 and

the upbringing of petitioner No.3. The said documents include

school fee receipts, book bills and educational records marked

as Ex.P6, Ex.P7 and Ex.P11 to Ex.P19.


      15. It is also submitted that the petitioners have also

produced medical bills relating to petitioner No.2 and petitioner

No.3 marked as Ex.P20 to Ex.P24, which demonstrate the

medical expenses incurred for the children. It is therefore

contended that the Family Court failed to properly appreciate

the documentary evidence placed on record and the financial

capacity of the respondent and has awarded maintenance of

only Rs.12,000/- per month each to petitioners No.2 and 3,

which is stated to be inadequate. It is further submitted that

the petitioners are presently dependent upon the father of
                                  -8-
                                             RPFC No. 253 of 2025



petitioner No.1, who does not have sufficient income to

maintain them.


      16.    The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-

husband reiterated the averments made in his statement of

objections. He admitted that petitioner No.1 is his legally

wedded wife and that petitioner No.2 is his daughter, but

stated that he had no knowledge about the birth of petitioner

No.3 and claimed that he was unaware that petitioner No.1 had

delivered a male child. He denied the allegation that he was

running the medical shop in the name and style of Lishitha

Medicals and produced certain documents including copies of

licences relating to a medical shop earlier known as Lishitha

Medical Hub and now named Shree Surya Putra Medicals, in

order to show that the said establishment was not in his name.

He further produced a rent agreement to contend that he was

residing    in   a   rented   house    and   paying   approximately

Rs.16,000/- per month as rent. The respondent also placed on

record certain lab reports relating to himself and pension

papers of his deceased father, who had been an employee of

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, in support of his defence.
                                   -9-
                                              RPFC No. 253 of 2025



      17.   Having considered the rival contentions and upon

perusal of the material placed on record, it is not in dispute that

petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife of respondent-

husband. The respondent has also admitted that petitioner

No.2 is his daughter. Though the respondent initially claimed

that he had no knowledge about the birth of petitioner No.3,

the Family Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record,

has recorded a finding that there was no plea of non-access

and that the respondent had failed to rebut the presumption

regarding   legitimacy.   The     said   finding   is   based   on   the

documentary evidence produced by the petitioners including

the birth certificates marked as Ex.P3 and Ex.P4, and the same

does not call for interference.


      18. The material on record further discloses that the

respondent is working as a Senior Veterinary Officer in the

Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services

under the Government of Karnataka. The salary slip for the

month of June, 2022 marked as Ex.P5 indicates that the

respondent was drawing a gross salary of Rs.90,167/- and a

net salary of Rs.70,505/- per month. During the course of

cross-examination, the respondent has admitted that his

present gross salary is about Rs.1,30,000/- per month. The
                                  - 10 -
                                              RPFC No. 253 of 2025



respondent has also admitted that he owns a Tata Nexon car

and two motorcycles namely Royal Enfield Bullet and Honda

Unicorn. These circumstances clearly demonstrate that the

respondent possesses sufficient financial capacity.


      19. The    evidence   on      record   further   indicates   that

petitioners No.2 and 3 are minor children, wherein, petitioner

No.2 is pursuing her education. The petitioners have produced

school fee receipts, book bills and other educational documents

marked as Ex.P6, Ex.P7 and Ex.P11 to Ex.P19, along with

medical bills relating to petitioner No.2 and petitioner No.3

marked as Ex.P20 to Ex.P24. These documents clearly reflect

the expenditure incurred towards the education, medical

treatment and other necessities of the children. The object of

Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is to prevent destitution and to

ensure that the wife and children are not left without means of

subsistence.


      20. Insofar as petitioner No.1-wife is concerned, the

Family Court has taken note of the fact that she is highly

qualified with a M.Tech. degree and is working as an Assistant

Professor in a private institution drawing a salary of about

Rs.22,600/- per month. The said fact has been admitted by her
                                - 11 -
                                            RPFC No. 253 of 2025



during the course of cross-examination and is also reflected in

the affidavits filed disclosing her assets and liabilities. In view

of the admitted income of petitioner No.1, the Family Court has

rightly held that she is capable of maintaining herself. Upon re-

appreciation of the material on record, this Court does not find

any illegality or perversity in the said finding warranting

interference.


      21. However, insofar as the quantum of maintenance

awarded to petitioners No.2 and 3 is concerned, this Court is of

the opinion that the amount of Rs.12,000/- per month each

awarded by the Family Court is on the lower side having regard

to the admitted income of the respondent and the needs of the

minor children. The respondent is a Government employee

drawing a substantial salary and the children are entitled to be

maintained in a manner commensurate with the financial

capacity and status of their father. The documentary evidence

produced by the petitioners clearly indicates that expenses are

incurred towards school fees, books, medical treatment and

other necessities.


      22.   Taking   into   consideration   the   income   of   the

respondent, the educational and medical expenses of the
                                      - 12 -
                                                     RPFC No. 253 of 2025



children as reflected in Ex.P6, Ex.P7, Ex.P11 to Ex.P19 and

Ex.P20 to Ex.P24 and the overall circumstances of the case,

this Court is of the considered view that enhancement of

maintenance from Rs.12,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month each

to petitioners No.2 and 3 would be just, reasonable and in

consonance with the object of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.


      23.     In view of the above, this Court proceeds to pass

the following:-

                                      ORDER
(i) The Revision petition is allowed-in-
part.
(ii) The judgment dated 29.07.2025
passed in Crl.Misc.No.71/2022 by the Principal
Family Court, Hassan is hereby modified.
(iii) The maintenance awarded to
petitioners No.2 and 3 is enhanced from
Rs.12,000/- per month each to Rs.15,000/- per
month each payable by the respondent.
(iv) The finding of the Family Court that
petitioner No.1-wife is not entitled to
maintenance is hereby confirmed.